United States v. Perez-Gonzalez
This text of United States v. Perez-Gonzalez (United States v. Perez-Gonzalez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Case: 25-10422 Document: 43-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2025
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-10422 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ December 29, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Kedin Omar Perez-Gonzalez,
Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:24-CR-245-1 ______________________________
Before Richman, Southwick, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Kedin Omar Perez-Gonzalez appeals his sentence following his guilty- plea conviction for illegal reentry into the country after having been previously removed. He argues that the district court did not orally pronounce at sentencing most of the discretionary standard conditions of supervised release that were later included in the written judgment.
_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-10422 Document: 43-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/29/2025
No. 25-10422
Based on our review of the record and the briefing, we are persuaded that the district court did not orally pronounce Standard Conditions 2 through 13 when it imposed the sentence; as a result, Perez-Gonzalez did not have an opportunity to object, our review is for abuse of discretion, and the written judgment conflicts with the oral pronouncement of sentence. See United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551, 556-60 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc); United States v. Baez-Adriano, 74 F.4th 292, 297-300 (5th Cir. 2023). The challenged conditions must be stricken from the written judgment, see United States v. Fields, 977 F.3d 358, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2020), with the exception of Standard Condition 10, which is partially consistent with the mandatory condition that Perez-Gonzalez not commit another state or local offense and need only be stricken in part by removing the reference to dangerous weapons, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(d), 922(g). Accordingly, we VACATE the sentence in part and REMAND for the district court to amend its written judgment in accordance with this opinion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Perez-Gonzalez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-perez-gonzalez-ca5-2025.